Wikipedia - how good is it for learning about history? If bad,

>>2691476
they all are biased to a certain degree , best can do is read a couple of sources and establish a happy middle.

Sadly its time consuming

>>2691476
I'm not a historian myself but any collection of historical knowledge may have it's biases or in some other way be innacurate, evaluate any source that you find proving a claim on wikipedia, and use that source if you find it accurate in your paper/argument.

is ancient.eu good?


it's a shame there's nothing remoteely close to the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy but for history

>>2691476
It's good for giving you a rough outline that's likely to be close to the mainstram consensus. It's useful to bridge gaps inbetween the periods/civilisations you know, but being satisfied with it alone is pretty self-limiting and retarded. It's basically an okay-ish starting point.

>>2691476
At the absolute least, wikipedia articles will have a great big list of sources at the end to check.

Usually the sources are great and you can get most of them at local libraries through interlibrary loan.

Wikipedia is great for history. Check their sources. Read the related articles. Go as deep as you'd like. It's a fantastic resource and anyone who tells you differently is just plain wrong.